Reid, Thomas (1710–1796)

5. Language and conception

Reid distinguishes proper names and general words in (1785:V). A general word signifies either an attribute or a combination of attributes; a proper name signifies an individual. By affirming a singular substantive (for example, ‘horse’) of an individual we claim it to have all the attributes each of which must be possessed by any member of the class named by its plural (‘horses’). From the infinite number of combinations of attributes that might be formed, we choose for purposes of classification only those that are useful for arranging our thoughts in discourse and in reasoning.

Concerning the conception of individual things that really exist, Reid says (1785: IV), that the things conceived are the actual things, which need not act upon him, nor him on them, in order to be conceived. Such conceptions are called ‘true’ when they agree with the thing conceived in respect of its attributes and relations. In ‘general conception’ what is conceived is the meaning of the general term, attribute or combination of attributes – the conception affixed to it by those who best understand the language.

There are conceptions which Reid calls ‘fancy pictures’. Such are the conceptions which Swift formed of Laputa, and Cervantes of Don Quixote and his squire. We can give names to such creatures of the imagination, conceive them distinctly, and reason consequentially concerning them (1785: IV.i), although there are no bearers for these names outside the story. Reid insists that he can conceive a centaur (1785: IV.ii). Conceiving is an operation of the mind. The sole object in this case is a centaur, an animal which has never existed. Reid rightly insists that what he conceives is not the image of an animal but an animal. It is a body of a certain figure and colour, having life and spontaneous motion. It would seem to be an individual nonexistent. Thus, for Reid the question of how conceiving of nonexistents is possible is, arguably, equivalent to that of how the conceiving of nonexistent individuals is possible.

‘Suppose I conceive a triangle, that is, a plain figure terminated by three right lines. He that understands this definition distinctly has a distinct conception of a triangle. But a triangle is not an individual; it is a species. … the thing conceived is general, and cannot exist without other attributes’ (1785: V.ii). A triangle that really exists must have a certain length of sides and measure of angles, a fixed time and place; the definition of a triangle includes neither existence nor any of these other attributes. Such passages suggest that Reid thinks that an ens rationis is a combination of attributes lacking certain members. But does Reid really think that Don Quixote is a universal?

Reid readily allows that one may conceive of a plan of government which is never put into practice (1785: V.iv). Such compositions are things conceived in the mind of the author, not individuals that really exist; the same general conception which the author had may be communicated to others by language. This seems to support the view that Don Quixote is general. And a mere combination of attributes lacks real existence, although Reid allows that we may ascribe existence to a universal in the sense of its being actually instantiated.

Reid insists that we have clear and distinct conceptions of attributes. He certainly maintains that the attributes of individuals are all we can distinctly conceive about them; but he also holds (1785: V.ii) that the whiteness of this sheet is one thing and whiteness another thing, and that, unlike whiteness, it is not a universal. Attributes are expressed by general words. The other class of general terms is of those terms that signify the genera and species into which we divide and subdivide things. This division neglects certain substantive-like expressions such as ‘entity’; if these are genuine substantives they can scarcely be said to signify a finite collection of attributes, where things that possess them all belong to one kind. Reid himself notices that the adjective ‘beautiful’ is applied to things of such different kinds that he is unable to conceive any quality that is in all the different things to which it applies (see Concepts).